Having had SSD's for over a year in two desktops at home, I now find reloading Win7 on a mechanical hard drive desktop (parents pc) so labourious to install, wait, whirrr, wait, click, whiirrr, etc
The sooner mechanical drives are binned the better, sure some people hate to see them go (non SSD owners) but like VHS, we'll all be glad to see the back of them when they finally go to hardware heaven.
I went to using SSD's last year but only in two machines on the home network. They are good, boot time is quicker but once up and running I don't see any real difference in performance with the programmes I use although my lad prefers his because he's a serious gamer. At the moment SSDs are expensive, (I paid over £400 for one of mine) and MTBF is questionable. Its going to be a while before two and three TB drives are available and affordable.
I would think for the vast majority of people, space is prefered to speed.
As it seems most people just use a PC for browsing and music and pictures and videos.
Then the initial advantages of boot up speed is lost once its booted up. You wouldnt notice any difference. But you would loose out on space and its cost you more.
it's the seek times that offer the real speed improvement more than the transfer speeds
... oh that old chestnut again.
I've never cloned a Windows 7 installation to an SSD without it picking up that it is now on an SSD and enabling TRIM itself, although I guess it doesn't hurt to check.
The 'Windows needs to reboot to finish installing new devices' is the giveaway.
I would think for the vast majority of people, space is prefered to speed.
As it seems most people just use a PC for browsing and music and pictures and videos.
Then the initial advantages of boot up speed is lost once its booted up. You wouldnt notice any difference. But you would loose out on space and its cost you more.
As been said it is not just boot times that is faster, loading software is faster, Vegas and photoshop is a lot faster on the SSD than on a standard drive. if you are just going to do some browsing, then you are not going to notice any difference.
The one problem with SSD units is how do they cope with being written to constantly? i have read that they can only be written to a certain amount of times, a mechanical hard drive is much more robust in that way.
As been said it is not just boot times that is faster, loading software is faster, Vegas and photoshop is a lot faster on the SSD than on a standard drive. if you are just going to do some browsing, then you are not going to notice any difference.
The one problem with SSD units is how do they cope with being written to constantly? i have read that they can only be written to a certain amount of times, a mechanical hard drive is much more robust in that way.
That could be their weakness, if true. The limit for rewriting would have to be well into the hundreds of thousands though, surely?
I wonder if those that don't notice much of an improvement with an SSD is because they cloned their old hard drive which happened to have a crapped out, slow, bug ridden operating system* and have transferred the same crap to the new drive?
*more crapped out and bug ridden than a fresh install, of course.
Otherwise maybe people just need low spec tablets to do their facebook, watching kittens and email.
From pushing power switch - entering password - to home page of firefox = 24 seconds
closes down in 2seconds
opening selection of menus and programs 1second or less.
So why would i want to trade those speeds in for something ''faster'' but less space, and more expensive?
So that's from cold full power on and off , not hibernate or sleep? (it's quite quick)
Clearly an SSD probably won't make the internet much faster unless you've got 101 tabs open with HD movies, astro garden and youtube kitten videos constantly playing
I wonder if those that don't notice much of an improvement with an SSD is because they cloned their old hard drive which happened to have a crapped out, slow, bug ridden operating system* and have transferred the same crap to the new drive?
*more crapped out and bug ridden than a fresh install, of course.
Otherwise maybe people just need low spec tablets to do their facebook, watching kittens and email.
I'd much rather backup the files and then have a fresh installation on the SSD.
From pushing power switch - entering password - to home page of firefox = 24 seconds
closes down in 2seconds
opening selection of menus and programs 1second or less.
So why would i want to trade those speeds in for something ''faster'' but less space, and more expensive?
I highly doubt that that is when you actually switch the computer off. My laptop screen goes black in about a second and a half when going into sleep mode. No way would your computer completely shut down in two seconds. I also have doubts about the line above that as well, if you're claiming that that is from switching the computer on after a complete shut down.
I highly doubt that that is when you actually switch the computer off. My laptop screen goes black in about a second and a half when going into sleep mode. No way would your computer completely shut down in two seconds. I also have doubts about the line above that as well, if you're claiming that that is from switching the computer on after a complete shut down.
Yep, just tried it again, same results.
2seconds = complete shutdown, not stanby or anything.
Youre aware im using Linux?
Yes its my main OS
Havent booted windows or osx up for about a yr.
So yes its relevant to me, no point in me buying a ssd.
I wouldnt get any benifits, just loose out on space and money.
could actually boot linux in 10 seconds if you want, how long does a ssd take to boot windows?
2seconds = complete shutdown, not stanby or anything.
Youre aware im using Linux?
Yes its my main OS
Havent booted windows or osx up for about a yr.
So yes its relevant to me, no point in me buying a ssd.
I wouldnt get any benifits, just loose out on space and money.
could actually boot linux in 10 seconds if you want, how long does a ssd take to boot windows?
2seconds = complete shutdown, not stanby or anything.
Youre aware im using Linux?
Yes its my main OS
Havent booted windows or osx up for about a yr.
So yes its relevant to me, no point in me buying a ssd.
I wouldnt get any benifits, just loose out on space and money.
could actually boot linux in 10 seconds if you want, how long does a ssd take to boot windows?
Ah, okay. I thought you were talking about Windows.
Speed wise your CPU and ram have an effect too. At home my PC is left on for weeks at a time and programmes like Video Studio Ultimate X6, Corel Draw, Photoshop are open and minimised so 'start up' is as quick as a mouse click. Working like this means I've seen no real improvement having fitted an SSD on my PC; my PC is very fast. An SSD has made an improvement in boot times on my laptop which is turned off when not in use.
Mine takes about 30 secs to boot with an SSD (got a Corsair M5 960gb), where as before, it was over a minute, they do make a helluva difference, program loading, gaming etc...., a lot faster with an SSD.
HDDs are slowly on their way to becoming obsolete. It looks as if more and more people are getting SSDs for their computers now. The time when programs load very quick for everyone is nearing.
Nowhere near as fast that on mine, my USB also powers off as the Windows logo comes up then takes 6 seconds to come back on so I can enter the login passcode.
that is nothing to do with the SSD it is a bios problem as it needs to hand over USB control to windows once it starts windows.
HDDs are slowly on their way to becoming obsolete. It looks as if more and more people are getting SSDs for their computers now. The time when programs load very quick for everyone is nearing.
I'm still amazed by some comments, the SSD is almost certainly the most instant, cost effective performance boost that works on almost any PC built in the last 7 years. No other single upgrade can really make such an overall performance boost. And yet the only apparent reason for negativity seems to be the relatively small storage space an SSD offers (although you can get 960GB drives now at a price) and yet all desktop PC's and some laptops will accomodate a second larger cheap mechanical drive easily.
There seems a real reluctance by some to accept this technology for some reason or another.
Comments
it needs to be cheaper not faster. we have seen several large companies microsoft, facebook asking for slower flash memory.
probably we will see flash memory replace magnetic storage, but the HDD has life in it yet.
What do they have against faster flash memory in SSDs? Surely this is a good thing? Unless making them faster keeps the prices up.
I went to using SSD's last year but only in two machines on the home network. They are good, boot time is quicker but once up and running I don't see any real difference in performance with the programmes I use although my lad prefers his because he's a serious gamer. At the moment SSDs are expensive, (I paid over £400 for one of mine) and MTBF is questionable. Its going to be a while before two and three TB drives are available and affordable.
i don't think they have anything against it per se. they'd just rather have twice as much than twice as fast.
Yeah, that would definitely be a good thing.
As it seems most people just use a PC for browsing and music and pictures and videos.
Then the initial advantages of boot up speed is lost once its booted up. You wouldnt notice any difference. But you would loose out on space and its cost you more.
... oh that old chestnut again.
I've never cloned a Windows 7 installation to an SSD without it picking up that it is now on an SSD and enabling TRIM itself, although I guess it doesn't hurt to check.
The 'Windows needs to reboot to finish installing new devices' is the giveaway.
You're 100% wrong.
Every operation is faster with an SSD. During and after bootup.
Well my internet browsing is very fast, so how can it be faster?
Edit...
OK its late for me
All i was saying was i, as others wouldnt notice a difference in the real world daily use of browsing etc.
in computing world it may be faster, but real life i wouldnt notice any difference after boot up.
Not for the price v space argument.
Do you have a low spec machine then?
From pushing power switch - entering password - to home page of firefox = 24 seconds
closes down in 2seconds
opening selection of menus and programs 1second or less.
So why would i want to trade those speeds in for something ''faster'' but less space, and more expensive?
The one problem with SSD units is how do they cope with being written to constantly? i have read that they can only be written to a certain amount of times, a mechanical hard drive is much more robust in that way.
That could be their weakness, if true. The limit for rewriting would have to be well into the hundreds of thousands though, surely?
*more crapped out and bug ridden than a fresh install, of course.
Otherwise maybe people just need low spec tablets to do their facebook, watching kittens and email.
So that's from cold full power on and off , not hibernate or sleep? (it's quite quick)
Clearly an SSD probably won't make the internet much faster unless you've got 101 tabs open with HD movies, astro garden and youtube kitten videos constantly playing
I'd much rather backup the files and then have a fresh installation on the SSD.
I highly doubt that that is when you actually switch the computer off. My laptop screen goes black in about a second and a half when going into sleep mode. No way would your computer completely shut down in two seconds. I also have doubts about the line above that as well, if you're claiming that that is from switching the computer on after a complete shut down.
Yep, just tried it again, same results.
2seconds = complete shutdown, not stanby or anything.
Youre aware im using Linux?
Yes its my main OS
Havent booted windows or osx up for about a yr.
So yes its relevant to me, no point in me buying a ssd.
I wouldnt get any benifits, just loose out on space and money.
could actually boot linux in 10 seconds if you want, how long does a ssd take to boot windows?
About 8 seconds.
Ah, okay. I thought you were talking about Windows.
I'm still amazed by some comments, the SSD is almost certainly the most instant, cost effective performance boost that works on almost any PC built in the last 7 years. No other single upgrade can really make such an overall performance boost. And yet the only apparent reason for negativity seems to be the relatively small storage space an SSD offers (although you can get 960GB drives now at a price) and yet all desktop PC's and some laptops will accomodate a second larger cheap mechanical drive easily.
There seems a real reluctance by some to accept this technology for some reason or another.